Forrester report urges HTML5 adoption, says most browsers can support it

Nearly 75 percent of users in North America run HTML5-compatible browsers.

A new report from market research company Forrester says that it’s time for companies to embrace the latest Web standards and start building richer Web experiences that take advantage of the capabilities that are supported by modern Web browsers. The report highlights changing trends in browser adoption and talks about how companies are taking advantage of new functionality.

A key issue addressed in the report is the growing market penetration of HTML5-enabled Web browsers. Citing recent browser marketshare statistics, Forrester says that nearly 75 percent of users in North America and 83 percent in Europe are running browsers that support a large segment of the HTML5 feature set. Forrester says that the penetration of HTML5-compatible browsers grew from 57 percent to 75 percent between the second quarter of 2011 and the second quarter of 2012.

Alongside that tremendous growth in modern browser adoption among end users, the pace of innovation has also increased. New standards are being drafted, maturing, and gaining adoption much faster than in the past. Browser vendors are adjusting their release management strategies and moving to a more iterative approach to development in order to accommodate these changes.

Forrester’s report points out that HTML5 and CSS3 features can be adopted incrementally and integrated into existing websites, which means that the cost of experimenting is low. The report also draws attention to the growing availability of compatibility libraries and polyfills that can simplify adoption of features that aren’t yet fully ubiquitous.

In our Web standards coverage here at Ars, we tend to spend a lot of time looking at the latest draft-status standards and cutting-edge features that aren’t yet widely supported by browsers. But it’s useful to take a step back and look at the breadth of modern Web capabilities introduced over the past few years that are approaching ubiquity and achieving rapid adoption.

All those in favor of giving up 25% of your revenue, raise your hands...

Really, I think this (HTML5/CSS3 etc) is great, but I'm grumpy because I'm spending this month tracking down IE7 issues (at least I was able to get the client to give up on the 4% of visitors using IE6).

As long as you're using proper progressive enhancement (which you still need to be, as support still varies even if you assume latest versions of each browser), it's been quite possible to use most emerging web features for quite a while. You have to have a good strategy for fallbacks, but you should do that anyway.

No. The situation with HTML5 is a bit odd now, though... We're not going to have more big releases with a new number (at least anytime soon), but continual incremental improvements to the specification.

I might be wrong but I am going to assume that if your browser is so out of date that you can't use HTML5 you probably ain't shopping on the net. So that 25% loss is probably substantially less than that maybe even in the single digits.

No. The situation with HTML5 is a bit odd now, though... We're not going to have more big releases with a new number (at least anytime soon), but continual incremental improvements to the specification.

All those in favor of giving up 25% of your revenue, raise your hands....

Exactly. Sorry folks, we just don't want your business any more. Please take that money away from here and give it to someone else.

Is that an argument against incremental adoption of the new standard, which is what is proposed, or is it an argument against a complete replacement of existing web pages with HTML5 pages, which is a proposal you invented as a strawman?

Or is it that you imagine web designers are so inept that they wouldn't have a graceful fallback to older technologies should the user be running an older, non-HTML5 compliant browser?

This article/claim is wildly incorrect. IE 9, the newest of the IE browsers being used right now (save for IE 10beta), scores only a 138 out of 500 points for implementing HTML5: http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html Since IE makes up a total of about 30% of all users in the world and is the most used browser in the U.S. (about 40%), that means the largest majority of internet users are on a browser that only implements 27.6% of the HTML5 standard!

40% of users (according to statcounter) are on IE. That's IE6+7+8+9. And 6,7 and 8 implement less than the 138/500 that IE9 "achieves".

This article/claim is wildly incorrect. IE 9, the newest of the IE browsers being used right now (save for IE 10beta), scores only a 138 out of 500 points for implementing HTML5:

Read the prior comments. 'html5' isn't a hard set of features/functionality, but is constantly expanding. A lot of the 'html5' features are very niche, and could be easily ignored (or just not work in IE) without actually breaking things. Considering that no browser fully implements HTML5, singling out IE isn't exactly fair, either.

All those in favor of giving up 25% of your revenue, raise your hands...

Really, I think this (HTML5/CSS3 etc) is great, but I'm grumpy because I'm spending this month tracking down IE7 issues (at least I was able to get the client to give up on the 4% of visitors using IE6).

:: raises hand ::

Actually, I am not being entirely truthful, if I had any revenue to speak of, I would probably have been more cautions. My site has been HTML5 for a month now and I've migrated a number of client sites as well. I guess I am still being misleading, I don't use many new wiz-bang features that will break on older browsers, or IE9 for that matter and I've yet to hear a complaint about loss of viewership... shrugs,

This article/claim is wildly incorrect. IE 9, the newest of the IE browsers being used right now (save for IE 10beta), scores only a 138 out of 500 points for implementing HTML5: http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html Since IE makes up a total of about 30% of all users in the world and is the most used browser in the U.S. (about 40%), that means the largest majority of internet users are on a browser that only implements 27.6% of the HTML5 standard!

40% of users (according to statcounter) are on IE. That's IE6+7+8+9. And 6,7 and 8 implement less than the 138/500 that IE9 "achieves".

I think you have misunderstood how browsers works. For example, IE9 does not support input type=search, type=tel, type=email and a lot of other input types, these will gracefully revert to a normal input type=text, which works perfectly well except that it does not provide specialized functions for the user.

For example, I can put a <input type="search"> into the top right corner of my web site and every browser, even those without support for that element will display a one-line text box (that can be styled with CSS as normal) that is perfectly usable. But some browsers, such as Safari that supports the type=search, will display a rounded text-box with an optional drop-down displaying previous searches done in that text box previously.

This means I can implement HTML5 elements in my page just fine, and have them work quite well, not perfectly awesome onehundredpercent mind you, but they still work and that is why these results should be taken into context of what they actually mean.

This article/claim is wildly incorrect. IE 9, the newest of the IE browsers being used right now (save for IE 10beta), scores only a 138 out of 500 points for implementing HTML5:

Read the prior comments. 'html5' isn't a hard set of features/functionality, but is constantly expanding. A lot of the 'html5' features are very niche, and could be easily ignored (or just not work in IE) without actually breaking things. Considering that no browser fully implements HTML5, singling out IE isn't exactly fair, either.

There will be html5 standart but some browser vendors implement unfinished standarts or introduce new features that aren't part of html5 draft. They call it living standart. MS on the other hand in IE use only features that are finished by w3c.

All those in favor of giving up 25% of your revenue, raise your hands...

That's a false dichotomy.

1. A site will not stop working in older browsers if you convert your doctype to HTML5 and add a number of HTML5-specific functions.2. The number of HTML5-capable browsers will vary wildly depending on ones target audience. On Ars the number os well above 95%.3. Was each percent browser user equivalent to the same number of percent of sales? For example are your, say 15%, Chrome users responsible for 15% of the sales and are your 20% IE6-7 users responsible for 20% of your sales?4. Will using newer technologies that add additional benefits to users of more modern browsers lead to increased sales from those users?

I can change an input text field to type=email and nothing will break. If I want what's typed into that box validated against a regexp, I still have to do that because I can't depend on type=email being supported, or working right if it is supported.

The problem comes with more complex things, like dates. If I have an XHTML or HTML4 form with a JavaScript date picker, I can't "just" change it to type=date. I have to test whether type=date is supported by the browser and suppress use of the JavaScript date picker if it is. If my date picker wasn't already returning RFC 3339 dates, I have to change the server-side code and the JavaScript date picker to match what type=date is going to return. Then I have to QA all of that stuff. For a basket full of browsers.

No.

The benefits are that I get a browser-native date picker, maybe, that works even with JavaScript disabled, maybe. Those benefits do not justify the cost. Yet.

I can change an input text field to type=email and nothing will break. If I want what's typed into that box validated against a regexp, I still have to do that because I can't depend on type=email being supported, or working right if it is supported.

You should never trust any input from users anyway. You should always validate and verify, even if you are 100% sure that 100% of your visitors has perfect support for the feature you want to use. Verification and validation of user input will still have to be done on the server end once HTML5 reaches 100% global user saturation.

You should never trust any input from users anyway. You should always validate and verify, even if you are 100% sure that 100% of your visitors has perfect support for the feature you want to use. Verification and validation of user input will still have to be done on the server end once HTML5 reaches 100% global user saturation.

Well, sure. That goes without saying. That's why I didn't say it.

However, you're right that I wasn't clear. I was thinking about a client-side regexp that could detect some types of manglement of email addresses.

This article/claim is wildly incorrect. IE 9, the newest of the IE browsers being used right now (save for IE 10beta), scores only a 138 out of 500 points for implementing HTML5:

Read the prior comments. 'html5' isn't a hard set of features/functionality, but is constantly expanding. A lot of the 'html5' features are very niche, and could be easily ignored (or just not work in IE) without actually breaking things. Considering that no browser fully implements HTML5, singling out IE isn't exactly fair, either.

Please reread the article and my comments:

From Article:

Quote:

Forrester says that nearly 75 percent of users in North America and 83 percent in Europe are running browsers that support a large segment of the HTML5 feature set

From my comment:

Quote:

Since IE makes up a total of about 30% of all users in the world and is the most used browser in the U.S. (about 40%), that means the largest majority of internet users are on a browser that only implements 27.6% of the HTML5 standard!

27.6% (which is the BEST any IE version does) is NOT "a large segment of the HTML5 feature set."

And some of the biggest problems for HTML5 are:

* No set standard for codecs and browsers like IE only support the patent-covered, non-free (it's free for display now but reserves the right to charge in the future - and they do charge to be in devices that create video) h.264, not webm, ogg-theora or even mpeg-4 This makes the video tag very inconsistent

* Audio tag has the same issues

* All the form stuff is unsupported by IE (i.e. validation, css selectors, control, etc) which eliminates a ton of work-reducing options

* No WebGL in IE

* No XMLHttpRequest Level 2 in IE

* No WebSockets in IE

* No FileReader/System in IE

* No WebWorkers in IE

* No notifications (in almost every browser) - this one's huge for making web apps 1st class citizens

The issue, it seems, isn't whether or not to implement HTML5. The underlying issue is really IE and why MicroSoft insists on making 'different' standards. If every web designer in the world said a big 'FU' to Internet Explorer and just make websites that only conform to the established standards, then I think the users out there would indeed adopt a standard browser rather than the fustercluck out dated browser that is continuing to cause friction and frustration for the past 15+ years.

All those in favor of giving up 25% of your revenue, raise your hands...

That's a false dichotomy.

1. A site will not stop working in older browsers if you convert your doctype to HTML5 and add a number of HTML5-specific functions.2. The number of HTML5-capable browsers will vary wildly depending on ones target audience. On Ars the number os well above 95%.3. Was each percent browser user equivalent to the same number of percent of sales? For example are your, say 15%, Chrome users responsible for 15% of the sales and are your 20% IE6-7 users responsible for 20% of your sales?4. Will using newer technologies that add additional benefits to users of more modern browsers lead to increased sales from those users?

I largely agree with you, but you have to make shitty choices especially with CSS3 of either dropping the feature for IE< 9 or using a fallback such as polyfills or shims or modernizr. The work you saved by using HTML5/CSS3 is often thus negated. Not to mention the massive performance problems in IE<9.

I like points 3 & 4 although I don't really think most people have good metrics to address them.

Exactly. Those of us who code for the 'net still struggle with IE9 every day. For me, today, it's HTML5 video which works in every browser but IE. A few weeks ago it was audio that needed javascript for the IE player to act like the other browsers (somewhat).

It's heartbreaking to have to listen to Microsoft people drone on about how some of this stuff works in next year's browser but the next year comes around and it's only a partial fix or all the other browsers have moved even further ahead in other areas.

Who do these standards people think I am, some kind of web developer who actually develops for the web all day? I don't have time for new things! It was hard enough to make my old things work! The last thing I want is for it to be any easier!

are running browsers that support a large segment of the HTML5 feature set

Great! Just tell me specifically which segment that is, and I'll be glad to develop for it.

Except that you can't. Because the "segment" varies from browser to browser, and is often implemented through browser specific extensions (which is the approved way to do it under the new HTML 'standard').

Speaking of 'standard' - now we don't actually have one. Most recently we've been given a perpetually moving target, so that the current state of flux is guaranteed to continue for years to come.

The issue, it seems, isn't whether or not to implement HTML5. The underlying issue is really IE and why MicroSoft insists on making 'different' standards. If every web designer in the world said a big 'FU' to Internet Explorer and just make websites that only conform to the established standards, then I think the users out there would indeed adopt a standard browser rather than the fustercluck out dated browser that is continuing to cause friction and frustration for the past 15+ years.

The irony is that IE9 implemented the html5 features that at the time of release were finished by w3c. The stuff that google, mozilla, opera are implementing is mostly experimental and still work in progress. I prefer the latter approach, but you can't blame that me isn't folowing the standards. Strictly speaking html5 isn't standard yet.

Why was it OK years ago for sites to be built in Flash, with crappy placeholder boxes showing up on machines that weren't running Flash urging the user to download and install Flash, but it's not OK for sites to show placeholder standard HTML pages instead of HTML5 pages for browsers that don't support HTML5 with a message urging the user to download an HTML5-compatible browser?

Why was it OK years ago for sites to be built in Flash, with crappy placeholder boxes showing up on machines that weren't running Flash urging the user to download and install Flash, but it's not OK for sites to show placeholder standard HTML pages instead of HTML5 pages for browsers that don't support HTML5 with a message urging the user to download an HTML5-compatible browser?

It wasn't OK then, and it isn't OK now. Crappy was, is, and will always be, crappy. One needs to give one's readers the best possible experience. For new development, one should use as much of HTML5 as fits, and implement reasonable fallbacks. However, it doesn't necessarily make sense to try to retrofit HTML5 into existing applications unless one is gaining functionality. See my "date" example above.

True, and I think that point has been reached for IE 6. Do not forget, however, that IE8 is as far as Windows XP users can go, and, according to Cnet, XP still had almost 45% of the desktop market as of May, 2012.

I don't think anyone wants to write off 45% of potential readers/customers.

I would use HTML5 for video except certain sites are slow to adopt or are under paywalls to use it (which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, I'm looking at you Escapist Magazine) and live video is absolutely horrendous with it and why Twitch won't use it yet for HD streams (mobile is coming along nicely, and that is primarily using HTML5) it seems only YouTube is the primary reason why people are becoming more comfortable to switch since the buffering issues I've had have been mostly ironed out.